ArmchairGeneral

Actually, although it is certainly impossible to disprove the afterlife, I can empirically "prove" it quite easily. All I have to do is kill you, and if there's an afterlife, I've shown that it exists, at least to you.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

gunnut

But your job is to prove it to the rest of the world in order to have the theory "proven." Proving something to the world one person a time isn't as efficient.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Patch

Right, I said I'd do a literature search and present here a sample of scientific papers regarding global warming. The following are the abstracts of the top five papers returned by the Web of Science database in response to the search term "Global warming" and the sort function "Relevance". My subscription is limited, and thus I cannot electronically access the full text of these papers, but I said I'd put something up here, so I'm afraid this is it . Unfortunately my life is still melting, so I won't have the time to debate these, but I hope they prove useful and/or interesting. If anyone really wants to see a full text (with data and all) they are usually available for around $30 (US), and I can provide links to the necessary websites.

So, that rather massive caveat notwithstanding, here you go:

Title: Global warming 2007 - An update to global warming: The balance of evidence and its policy implications
Author(s): Keller CF (Keller, Charles F.)
Source: THESCIENTIFICWORLDJOURNAL 7: 381-399 2007
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 56 Times Cited: 0
Abstract: In the four years since my original review (Keller[25]; hereafter referred to as CFK03), research has clarified and strengthened our understanding of how humans are warming the planet. So many of the details highlighted in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report[21] and in CFK03 have been resolved that I expect many to be a bit overwhelmed, and I hope that, by treating just the most significant aspects of the research, this update may provide a road map through the expected maze of new information. In particular, while most of CFK03 remains current, there are important items that have changed:
Most notable is the resolution of the conundrum that mid-tropospheric warming did not seem to match surface warming. Both satellite and radiosonde (balloon-borne sensors) data reduction showed little warming in the middle troposphere (4-8 km altitude). In the CFK03 I discussed potential solutions to this problem, but at that time there was no clear resolution. This problem has now been solved, and the middle troposphere is seen to be warming apace with the surface.
There have also been advances in determinations of temperatures over the past 1,000 years showing a cooler Little Ice Age (LIA) but essentially the same warming during medieval times (not as large as recent warming). The recent uproar over the so-called "hockey stick" temperature determination is much overblown since at least seven other groups have made relatively independent determinations of northern hemisphere temperatures over the same time period and derived essentially the same results. They differ on how cold the LIA was but essentially agree with the Mann's hockey stick result that the Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the last 25 years.
The question of the sun's influence on climate continues to generate controversy. It appears there is a growing consensus that, while the sun was a major factor in earlier temperature variations, it is incapable of having caused observed warming in the past quarter century or so. However, this conclusion is being challenged by differing interpretations of satellite observations of Total Solar Insolation (TSI). Different satellites give different estimates of TSI during the 1996-7 solar activity minimum. A recent study using the larger TSI satellite interpretation indicates a stronger role for the sun, and until there is agreement on TSI at solar minimum, we caution completely disregarding the sun as a significant factor in recent warming.
Computer models continue to improve and, while they still do not do a satisfactory job of predicting regional changes, their simulations of global aspects of climate change and of individual forcings are increasingly reliable.
In addition to these four areas, the past five years have seen advances in our understanding of many other aspects of climate change-from albedo changes due to land use to the dynamics of glacier movement. However, these more are of second order importance and will only be treated very briefly.
The big news since CFK03 is the first of these, the collapse of the climate critics' last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the center pole that held up the critics' entire "tent." Their argument was that, if there had been little warming in the past 25 years or so, then what warming was observed would have been within the range of natural variations with solar forcing as the major player. Further, the models would have been shown to be unreliable since they were predicting warming that was not happening. But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions.
Thus, while uncertainties still remain, we are now seeing a coherent picture in which past climate variations, solar and other forcings, model predictions and other indicators such as glacier recession all point to a human-induced warming that needs to be considered carefully.
A final topic touched on briefly here is the new understanding of the phenomenon called "global dimming." Several sets of observations of the sun's total radiation at the surface have shown that there has been a reduction in sunlight reaching it. This has been related to the scattering of sunlight by aerosols and has led to a better quantification of the possibility that cleaning up our atmospheric pollution will lead to greater global warming.
Adding all these advances together, there is a growing consensus that the 21st century will indeed see some 2 degrees C (3.5 degrees F) or more in additional warming. This is corroborated in the new IPCC Assessment, an early release of which is touched on very briefly here.


Title: Public perceptions of global warming: United States and international perspectives
Author(s): Bord RJ, Fisher A, O'Connor RE
Source: CLIMATE RESEARCH 11 (1): 75-84 DEC 17 1998
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 35 Times Cited: 30
Abstract: National and international survey data on global warming are summarized in terms of levels of awareness, actual knowledge, degree of concern, perceived risk, and willingness to pay or sacrifice to mitigate or adapt to potential negative impacts. The data indicate the following: solid awareness of and support for general environmental goals; an awareness of and concern for global warming; a flawed understanding of global warming that is the result of an inappropriate application of a general pollution model; considerable perceived threat from global warming but less so than for most other issues; and a limited willingness to sacrifice to better cope with global warming. Although global warming generates concern around the globe, it is not a 'front-burner' issue. Concern tends to be highest in Canada, most of Europe and South America. Errors in assessing causes of global warming are global in nature. International data demonstrates considerable support for economic sacrifices to deal with environmental problems, including global warming. Our own data support but go beyond earlier data by implying that global warming is not a salient issue, and that people across the globe will support global climate change initiatives that do not levy unusual hardships; but they cannot be expected to voluntarily alter their lifestyles.


Title: Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims
Author(s): McCright AM, Dunlap RE
Source: SOCIAL PROBLEMS 47 (4): 499-522 NOV 2000
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 72 Times Cited: 30
Abstract: The sociological literature on global environmental change emphasizes the processes by which the problem of global warming is socially constructed. However, the opposing efforts to construct the "non-problematicity" of global warming advanced by the conservative movement are largely ignored. Utilizing recent work on framing processes in the serial movements literature and claims-making from the social problems literature, this paper analyzes the counter-claims promoted by the conservative movement between 1990 and 1997 as it mobilized to challenge the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. A thematic content analysis of publications circulated on the web sites of prominent conservative think tanks reveals three major counter-claims. First, the movement criticized the evidentiary basis of global warming as weak, if not entirely wrong. Second, the movement argued that global warming will have substantial benefits if it occurs. Third, the movement warned that proposed action to ameliorate global warming would do more harm than good. In short, the conservative movement asserted that, while the science of global warning appears to be growing more and more uncertain, the harmful effects of global warming policy are becoming increasingly certain. In order to better understand the controversy over global warming, future research should pay attention to the influence of the conservative movement by identifying the crucial roles of conservative foundations, conservative think tanks, and sympathetic "skeptic" scientists in undermining the growing scientific consensus over the reality of global warming.


Title: Lay perceptions of global risk - Public views of global warming in cross-national context
Author(s): Dunlap RE
Source: INTERNATIONAL SOCIOLOGY 13 (4): 473-498 DEC 1998
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 70 Times Cited: 27
Abstract: This article reports results from a 1992 Gallup sun ey conducted in six nations (Canada, USA, Mexico, Brazil, Portugal and Russia) that explored public perceptions of global warming in some detail. Overall the results tend to support those of the small-scale but in-depth studies on which the present study built: Lay publics in these six nations see global warming as a problem, although not as serious as ozone depletion or rain forest destruction. Most people acknowledge that they do not understand global warming very well, and results from questions about the perceived causes and consequences of global warming illustrate their limited understanding. While often confusing global warming with ozone depletion and air pollution, majorities of respondents in all but Russia believe that it is already occurring and large majorities within all nations believe that it will occur within their lifetimes. Furthermore, as discussions of the 'risk society' suggest, public perceptions of global warming do not vary consistently across differing social strata within the nations. The article ends by discussing implications of the results, and questions whether detailed public understanding of highly complex issues Like global warming is feasible or even necessary for effective policy-making.


Gosh, that's a rather massive chunk of text, and I'm not sure it really achieves anything. But hey, I said I'd post some stuff, so there it is.

Excuse me while I go and have a nervous breakdown...

clackers

Pari, the groups you listed are right wing thinktanks ... they can't possibly match the G8 scientific academies summarizing the findings on behalf of the researchers in their fields. Let's look at them individually:

The Science & Environmental Policy Project?
Four of its nine science advisors are deceased, if we believe Wikipedia. SEPP Board of Directors and Science Advisors

The Marshall Institute, called by Senator John McCain a "disgrace" to the name of the great George C Marshall: Some Like It Hot

The NCPA, in the pay of Exxon for ten years, if we believe Greenpeace: ExxonSecrets Factsheet: National Center for Policy Analysis

The Heartland Institute, also in the pay of Exxon as well as Phillip Morris: ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Heartland Institute

Cato Institute, another in the pay of Exxon, who apparently also disagree with mainstream scientists that radon is a risk to householders: ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Cato Institute

clackers

Oh, and Pari ... still waiting on Harvard University's position statement from you ...

clackers

Well, Lindzen's had his go, submitting to his peers in the IPCC and printing research papers, and ... the majority just don't agree with him.

Now, he may be Galileo, heroically knowing the truth while all around him are wrong.

Or, going with the numbers, he may unfortunately be like Russel Targ, the Stanford laser pioneer who wasted American taxpayers' money with his ESP research for the military and declared Israeli magician Uri Geller was the "genuine article". Or Nobel Prize Winner, Ivan Pavlov, who believed in Lamarckian evolution. Or this list of eminent scientists who it may be claimed believe in a 6000 year old Earth or that as a species we're not descended from anything: Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net

But what we can be certain of is that we don't have PhDs in climatology, as far as I can tell, and that it is simply not a discipline for armchair generals such as ourselves.

It's what we have experts for - to battle it out between themselves and a majority view to finally emerge - it's how all science has worked.

clackers

Well, yes, Patch, all science is inductive (based on certain observations, a subset of what is real) versus maths or logic, which is deductive ... e.g. observation tells the turkey that every day of its life is enjoyable, but that's only induction ... some other rule may be at work it's unaware of, such as Thanksgiving! ...

clackers

I think you're right, gunnut. Maybe "climate change" is a more accurate phrase after all, to get around the idea that it has to be some uniform effect, and that next January we'll all be covered in layers of sunscreen lotion, wearing boardshorts and sandals to work ...

clackers

Wow, you also reject the mainstream scientific belief of a connection between smoking and cancer, Dale? What's your logic? I'm genuinely stunned ...

dalem

*******s.

One does not need an advanced degree to recognize bull poo when one smells it. Neither does one need a PhD to understand how the sun is connected to the planets' climates.

One only needs a PhD to ignore all that and reach for the complicated wrong answer.

-dale

dalem

Oh, the numbers do seem to indicate clear connections between primary smoking and lung disease and lung cancer, sure. But the secondary stuff is all twaddle.

-dale

captain

Hi all,

For those of us who are drowning in the mountainous reams of quotes, articles and just general waffle, here is an escape, although pertinent to the subject.

A novel titled State of Fear written by Micheal Crichton is not a bad read.

What I found interesting was the author's comments under appendix 1...Why politicized science is dangerous.
What was unusual for a fiction novel was the extent of the bibliography that ran to nearly 30 pages.
I chose a random sample of some of the sources he quoted and looked them up only to find that this part of the novel was not fiction at all.
I have never seen a novelist do so much research to write a novel.

I bet the doomsdayers and control freaks have Crichton on their extensive list of people to hate.

Cheers.

gunnut

Yeah, climate change. Ever noticed "global warming" all of a sudden turned into "climate change?" Ever wonder why? I'll tell you why. The global warming cult realized their data doesn't support their theory, so they change the theory to fit the data. The ol' bait and switch.

Climate changes. Doesn't mean man has anything to do with it. To think man can change global climate pattern in a few short years, decades even, is egomaniacal to say the least. Earth does what earth wants. We have very little say in it.

captain

Right now the global warming /climate change high priests are meeting in Bali to decide the future of the world.

Our new Chairman Rudd has sent along a sizeable group of the comrades to duly sign the protocols and pay homage to the earth godess and her consort Al Gore.

A group of scientists who are Climate change sceptics have been barred from the conference and the meeting facility along with journalists who are considered to not be favourable.

Unfortunately we in Australia will have to get used to the fact that our economy will be destroyed and we may have to get used to living in caves.
Never mind though, we will all be equal,,,,,,,well some of the comrades will be a bit more equal and they may be able to have air con if the rest of us pedal fast enough.

Our little mates accross the ditch signed it about 5 years ago but, if the article below is any indication of what is expected if we are both to reduce gasses by 60% by 2020, then New Zealand may be in for a tougher time than us.

So Pari, it's a Prius for you if you can afford one, other than that, drag the old pushy out of the shed.
At least peddling that around will keep you warm in the winter because the heating will have to go.
No more nice Colby cheese for us because we wont be able to afford it even if you have any methane producing cows left.

To our mates in the US, don't sign the b***** thing and be careful who you elect as the next President.



Committing to Kyoto would come at costBy Alex Robson
October 17, 2007 01:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
MONDAY'S tax cut announcement by the Coalition means the election campaign is off to a good start. Economic policy has been moved to the top of the political agenda, as it should be.

Yet to date, Labor's tax policy seems to consist of nothing whatsoever. What has it been doing for the past 11 years in opposition?

All the same, we can guess what Labor's fiscal policy might look like by examining some of their other policy proposals. Take climate change policy, for instance.

Labor's goal is to reduce Australia's CO2 emissions to 60 per cent of 2000 emissions by 2050.

This sounds fine in the abstract - but what might it mean in reality?

In 2000 Australia's total emissions were about 550 megatonnes in CO2-equivalent terms. So Labor's policy translates into a target of 330 megatonnes of emissions by 2050.

In the absence of any policy interventions, business-as-usual greenhouse emissions are projected to grow strongly.

Indeed, the Australian Greenhouse Office's best-case scenario projects that even with abatement measures in place, total emissions will be about 700 megatonnes by 2020 -- which is more than double Labor's 2050 target.

By 2050, Australia's emissions will probably exceed 1000 megatonnes. In other words, achieving Labor's target could easily be equivalent to eliminating more than 100 per cent of current activities that use fossil fuels.

All of this in order to reduce global temperatures by exactly nothing.

The other part of Labor's climate change policy is to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This is a strange objective, given Kyoto is basically dead in the water. The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to percentage changes from a 1990 baseline. The biggest problem is not with the targets themselves, but the process by which emissions cuts are supposed to be achieved.

The ratifying countries were forced to agree to their Kyoto targets without knowing what the costs of meeting those targets would be. This is like agreeing to spend the rest of your life with someone you have only just met during a one night stand.

It is simply not a credible or sustainable commitment.

As a result, most Kyoto-ratifying countries have failed to significantly abate their greenhouse emissions and reach their targets.

And why should they? There is nothing unreasonable about exceeding emissions targets by significant amounts when you are unsure of the costs of meeting those targets.

Any other course of action would be sheer folly.

But Kyoto has very little to do with reasonableness. Just ask the New Zealanders. Our friends across the ditch signed up to Kyoto in December 2002, even though a 2001 National Interest Analysis on the case for ratifying the Kyoto Protocol could not decide whether moderate global warming would be detrimental or beneficial for New Zealanders.

Helen Clark's Government ignored this information and committed her country to a program of reducing emissions over the 2008-12 period to 1990 levels or to take responsibility for the difference.

In practice, that means hundreds of millions of Kiwi tax dollars will be paid to former Soviet Union countries, which have been lucky to accumulate carbon credits.

Actually, luck has had little to do with it. The surest way for a country to reduce greenhouse emissions and accumulate carbon credits is to implement policies which wreck the economy - something at which many former Soviet Union countries excel.

The New Zealand Treasury estimates New Zealand's Kyoto liability currently stands at NZ$708 million.

This doesn't sound like very much, but this guess is more than double what it was two years ago.

At that rate of increase, at the end of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2012, New Zealanders will owe about NZ$4.2 billion - or about NZ$1000 per person.

So, in a nutshell, the main effect of Kyoto will be for New Zealand taxpayers to subsidise bad economic policies by politicians in the former Soviet Union.

Does Kevin Rudd have similar plans for Australia?

On the one hand, ratifying Kyoto and committing to a process which has unknown costs seems to be a very strange policy, particularly for someone who constantly bombards us with claims that he is an economic conservative.

On the other hand, history suggests Labor has a strong record of reducing greenhouse emissions.

The only prime minister who has managed to do it was Paul Keating in the early 1990s, when he engineered "the recession we had to have" and our emissions levels plummeted.

Perhaps this is exactly what Rudd has in mind.

Alex Robson is a lecturer in economics at the Australian National University


Committing to Kyoto would come at cost | NEWS.com.au

Cheers.

Parihaka

LOL, that's the thing clackers, you keep talking and linking to politics and I keep providing science. The science from Harvard is in the wiki link I provided, look it up yourself.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz